Re: junior Mentor request advice from senior Mentor.

2015-03-31 Thread jan i
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org javascript:; wrote: Not sure what are the licenses of the libs in question, so please refer to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html if in

Re: ASFIncubator now managed via TweetDeck

2015-03-31 Thread Ted Dunning
I think that David's plan is considerably better. The key is the access to the over-ride keys. On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:08 PM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote: The above makes a really nice, security-conscious scheme that I would love to champion among various PMCs and suggest that

Re: ASFIncubator now managed via TweetDeck

2015-03-31 Thread jonathon
On 31/03/15 03:08, David Nalley wrote: the master ASFxxx account be associated with. I see two alternatives here: * ASF Infra team collectively owns it * Whoever controls @TheASF owns it Neither IMO. Infra doesn't want it ... And burdening Sally, Jim, Joe, etc with scores of

Incubator PMC/Board report for Apr 2015 ([ppmc])

2015-03-31 Thread Marvin
Dear podling, This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly board report. The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 15 April 2015, 10:30 am PST. The report for your podling will

Re: ASFIncubator now managed via TweetDeck

2015-03-31 Thread Roman Shaposhnik
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:05 AM, jonathon toki.kant...@gmail.com wrote: On 31/03/15 03:08, David Nalley wrote: the master ASFxxx account be associated with. I see two alternatives here: * ASF Infra team collectively owns it * Whoever controls @TheASF owns it Neither IMO. Infra

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0

2015-03-31 Thread Branko Čibej
On 31.03.2015 16:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: 8) It would be good to avoid all those RC RCs as it's confusing to have multiple levels of release candidates - in Apache, a Release Candidate is this particular thing you are asking us to vote over. (this might have been pointed out earlier). A

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0

2015-03-31 Thread Marvin Humphrey
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 31.03.2015 16:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: 8) It would be good to avoid all those RC RCs as it's confusing to have multiple levels of release candidates - in Apache, a Release Candidate is this particular thing you are

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0

2015-03-31 Thread Stian Soiland-Reyes
That thread does not mention edtFTPj or the test dependencies. http://enterprisedt.com/products/edtftpj/ but if edtFTPj is optional, why is it then not marked as such in the modules/urideploy/pom.xml? If I comment out edtFTPj, then I get lots of compiler errors. modules/urideploy is depended

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0

2015-03-31 Thread Stian Soiland-Reyes
sorry, my send button was trigger happy.. +0 - due to build errors (see below) Verified: 1) GPG signature matches BD656948 from KEYS 2) MD5/SHA1 signatures 3) No binaries (except PNGs, test SSL certificates, PDF) 4) DISCLAIMER, LICENSE and NOTICE 5) rat plugin happy (mvn clean validate

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0

2015-03-31 Thread Dmitriy Setrakyan
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org wrote: -0 because of required LGPL dependencies. I think we established that these were optional and thus allowed during the last release:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0

2015-03-31 Thread Dmitriy Setrakyan
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org wrote: That thread does not mention edtFTPj or the test dependencies. http://enterprisedt.com/products/edtftpj/ but if edtFTPj is optional, why is it then not marked as such in the modules/urideploy/pom.xml? If I

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0

2015-03-31 Thread Dmitriy Setrakyan
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org wrote: sorry, my send button was trigger happy.. +0 - due to build errors (see below) Verified: 1) GPG signature matches BD656948 from KEYS 2) MD5/SHA1 signatures 3) No binaries (except PNGs, test SSL certificates,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0

2015-03-31 Thread Stian Soiland-Reyes
-0 because of required LGPL dependencies. (As much as I would prefer LGPL dependencies to be allowed, they are not: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ) They are not technically *included* - so legally I think it is passable for this release, as long as you only distribute this source

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0

2015-03-31 Thread Branko Čibej
On 31.03.2015 17:46, Marvin Humphrey wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 31.03.2015 16:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: 8) It would be good to avoid all those RC RCs as it's confusing to have multiple levels of release candidates - in Apache, a Release

Re: junior Mentor request advice from senior Mentor.

2015-03-31 Thread Konstantin Boudnik
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 03:55PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Konstantin Boudnik c...@apache.org wrote: Not sure what are the licenses of the libs in question, so please refer to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html if in doubt. * zlib1 -- Zlib license

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0

2015-03-31 Thread Konstantin Boudnik
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 09:03PM, Branko Čibej wrote: On 31.03.2015 17:46, Marvin Humphrey wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Branko Čibej br...@apache.org wrote: On 31.03.2015 16:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: 8) It would be good to avoid all those RC RCs as it's confusing to have

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0

2015-03-31 Thread Stian Soiland-Reyes
Agree that release.html needs some polishing, and that there are no hard rules on the versions (even don't re-release the same version is not written down in letters). Obviously it would still be confusing to vote over say RC2 of 1.0.0-RC3 and best avoided if possible. This vote is luckily over

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0

2015-03-31 Thread Marvin Humphrey
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org wrote: -0 because of required LGPL dependencies. I think we established that these were optional and thus allowed during the last release: http://s.apache.org/vfN As far as LGPL, to my knowledge, Ignite only has 2

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0

2015-03-31 Thread Stian Soiland-Reyes
? My apologies for not looking up how to actually use Ignite :) The build still requires the edtFTPj dependency to compile, even without -Plgpl - using urideploy through Maven would always pull in the edtFTPj dependency. It is also in the zip: inflating:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0

2015-03-31 Thread Stian Soiland-Reyes
You did not include the hashes, so I will assume: stain@biggie-utopic:/tmp/92/people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0$ cat *md5 *sha1 401e8407bb262aacb1600bb188f9 incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src.zip a8f643ffdc5b45101cf5a9ad5f19b9fce5a4099f incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src.zip I would

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0

2015-03-31 Thread Dmitriy Setrakyan
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes st...@apache.org wrote: ? My apologies for not looking up how to actually use Ignite :) The build still requires the edtFTPj dependency to compile, even without -Plgpl - using urideploy through Maven would always pull in the edtFTPj